pbi_normalize_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it delivers strong behavioral specifics: what gets moved, what is scaled up, margin respect, no rearrangement of compliant items, and before/after audit score comparison. It does not mention persistence/reversibility or the role of the dry_run parameter, which is a notable gap for a mutation-capable tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: three sentences, immediately stating the main action, then providing key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains what the tool does in terms of geometry normalization and audit score comparison, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, it omits the meaning of the dry_run parameter and whether changes are persisted immediately, which is critical for safe usage. This makes it minimal for the tool's moderate complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention dry_run or request_id at all. The dry_run parameter is especially important for understanding the tool's effect, but the description omits it. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool normalizes the geometry of ALL report pages, a specific verb+resource action. It describes concrete behaviors (containing overflow, scaling up too-small items, respecting margins) and distinguishes from the single-page sibling pbi_normalize_page_layout via 'TODAS las paginas.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context is clear: use for whole-report layout normalization, while sibling tools handle single-page or other layout tasks. However, there are no explicit exclusions or direct alternative comparisons, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.